Hopefully they ban you and you can watch all the films you want you retarded troll.
Good replies people, I'll be back in a bit, watching a film.
What? No one mentions the cheap-o unregistered Saturday Night Special they'd stick in the hand of the intruder after they'd shot him dead?
ALWAYS keep a POS "throw-down" for such occasions.
"You see the man has a knife in his hand"
Before this point you haven't specified that I know this to be a burglar, it could be a member of my family tripping on things in the dark or a stupid friend who didn't think to knock.
People don't walk around holding knives unless they expect to use them.
Damn! good thinking, it's too late now
To everyone: I'm going to sit back and read for a while before responding.
I will get back to the people in this thread, but I haven't slept yet and it's 9:42 am, I'll have to reply tomorrow or late tonight after work.
There are thousands and thousands of dead kittens because of all the folks who feed this troll....
There are now tons of dead kittens thanks to all who feed this troll known as Hal9000
I'm the troll?
-1 Kitten
Ok HAL, I'll bite. What would a anti-gun pacifist like yourself do in this situation, besides probably get yourself killed?
Hey, neckbeard... are you going to answer your own question or not?
I will get back to the people in this thread, but I haven't slept yet and it's 9:42 am, I'll have to reply tomorrow or late tonight after work.
Premise: Human life is the most valuable thing on the planet, it deserves respect, as human life has created some of the greatest and most terrible things the world has ever known, before that life is over we are unable to determine what potential each life has, whether they are a potential Ghandi or a potential Hitler is unknown, until their life has been lived, it is this potential that is unique to human beings, this potential is what gives a strangers life value, and that value requires respect.
Premise 2: As human life has value and requires respect taking a human beings life should only be done in cases where something of greater value would be lost or taken if no action is taken. I.e. If a person of known value will die, rather than unknown value, if multiple people will die rather than a single person, or if a person who has more potential or a more valuable contribution to the world will die if a person of lesser potential or value does not die. I.e. an 80 year old man has to die to save a 5 year old. Or Hitler has to die to save Ghandi.
These statements seem contradictory to me.
You're in your early twenties, right? You should start outgrowing your notions of moral absolutes pretty soon.
It has been brought screaming to my attention that I am in the extreme minority when it comes to my views on killing in self defence, which is making me question that perhaps I'm wrong to hold the view that I do. I'm more than happy to be wrong, but I won't accept that I am wrong without a reasoned argument to the contrary, or a superior argument to the one I make. So, here is my argument, the belief I hold with regards to killing a person in self defence.
Premise: Human life is the most valuable thing on the planet, it deserves respect, as human life has created some of the greatest and most terrible things the world has ever known, before that life is over we are unable to determine what potential each life has, whether they are a potential Ghandi or a potential Hitler is unknown, until their life has been lived, it is this potential that is unique to human beings, this potential is what gives a strangers life value, and that value requires respect.
Premise 2: As human life has value and requires respect taking a human beings life should only be done in cases where something of greater value would be lost or taken if no action is taken. I.e. If a person of known value will die, rather than unknown value, if multiple people will die rather than a single person, or if a person who has more potential or a more valuable contribution to the world will die if a person of lesser potential or value does not die. I.e. an 80 year old man has to die to save a 5 year old. Or Hitler has to die to save Ghandi.
Conclusion: In a home invasion scenario the invader should not be killed until it is absolutely clear that he/ she poses a very real an definite undeniable threat to the life or lives of others.
Please feel free to pick it apart, explaining what is wrong with it, how you feel contrary to it, and how I should feel.
Please do not just hurl insults and abuse, it benefits no one.
I am including in this thread a poll, that gives you the chance to say where you draw the line, where you think that killing an assailant in a hypothetical situation is acceptable. The situation is as follows.
A Man has broken into your home, while you are home, and while your family sleeps. You are woken by the noise, you are armed with a loaded handgun. The poll options are different points in this hypothetical at which you can choose to take the mans life, as the situation develops, please choose a poll option, then explain why you feel that way in the thread.
Please note, I won't reply to everyone, I imagine a lot of people will post.
OP, let's just put this in a nutshell so you might understand, when a knife-wielding person enters your home and attacks you in the shower they have forfeited their right to ANY protection from the law, it's not like she saw a dude stealing a lawn ornament and shot him, more than likely without the gun she would be dead now, what's the issue with you understanding this?.